[kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
rbclemen at gmail.com
rbclemen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 31 01:05:16 EST 2011
I will tell you exactly how Bell (and for that matter Rogers) provides their services to small towns and remote areas. They don't. They have never had the responsibility to make sure they provide uniform telecom services to all Canadians. They only serve markets that are profitable. Changes in technology have made that cost effective in more areas, but many rural areas are still served by small Telcos where it isn't worthwhile for Bell to step in. And these small companies have always been able to offer services at comperable rates without rediculous charges to cover "infrastructure upgrades".
Transit systems are pretty tightly controlled by the municipalities they serve. Power distribution is still handled by a public entity (tho generation was spun off--I think that is how it worked). Maybe it is time that basic communication infrastructure became a public service.
We are not talking about wiring an existing city from scratch. Bell has cable trunks all over the city already. They can put more fibre where there is already fibre very cheaply in a matter of hours. New neighbourhoods are wired up by the developers of those neighbourhoods at their own cost. If you want Bell service somewhere YOU pay the exorbitant costs of running the cables or you don't get it. It would have cost us about 7000 dollars to get cable and internet to our old office which was within 200 feet of existing residential cable services. These companies have no reason to whine about having to provide infrastructure.
And none of this needs monthly replacement or even routine physical maintenance. And it lasts a long time. Fibre doesn't break down. Copper will last plenty long. They have years, in some cases DECADES to amortize these infrastructure expenditures.
The only real reason they are doing this is because unlimited Internet will cost them money in their other business ventures. One half-decent internet connection means you don't need a phone, radio, or TV services. And I am sorry, but equivalents to Satelite and cable TV services only really exist in North America. Because the world doen't need them. Everywhere else in the world you buy a receiver and a dish, and there are hundreds of free unscrambled channels being broadcast in the clear for everyone. Here we have to pay for that.
I should go to bed now.
Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.
From: <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:58:18
To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
I believe you are ignoring the biggest costs ...
What would it cost, in equipment and personnel time, to run fibre to that
Or to expand that network so that those currently too far from a CO can
get fibre service?
We're talking rights of way, laying cable, coordinating with not trying to
do that, or to try to do that, at the same time as road construction, or
all those other issues.
And how long until you are able to deliver such service to all residences
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:48:57 +0000, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, rough number crunchiing
> I vaguely recall a DSLAM system costs about 30 grand. But let's assume
> costs 8 times that. In a neighbourhod where it serves a hundred homes,
> cost of the DSLAM is paid for in one year by 100 users using 178 GB at
> dollars per gigabyte
> How much is a KM of shielded CAT6 equivalent gonna cost (which is 4
> customers worth on its own). And you can't tell me it is gonna be used
> in a year. Plus you either have a POTS line or pay a dry loop fee for
> I know there are other costs. But I know they have the capital to
> in something requiring more than a year for a ROE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
> Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:34:18
> To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:15:24 -0800 (PST), Raul Suarez <rarsa at yahoo.com>
>> Of course UBB is not stupid, just devious.
>> As Brent says, it was just lobbying to limit what the users do with
> You use bandwidth, you pay more. How you use it, is your decision. Don't
> use it, don't pay more.
>> Think about equipment, service and all, including all the customers.
>> $60 /
>> month should be enough to cover much more than the "Cap" bandwidth.
>> Do you really think that it costs them $2 to have the infrastructure to
>> 1 GB?
> No, I think, cumulatively, it costs Billions.
>> The argument comparing the Internet with electricity would be valid if
>> paying the real price of the bandwith. I really doubt we do.
> I doubt we pay enough for the real cost of the bandwidth either.
> I suppose it depends upon what payback period is reasonable.
> However, I'll be right there with you when Bell is turned into a public
> non-profit company. Along with banks, investment and insurance firms and
> (That's not entirely tongue in cheek, but somewhat.)
>> So lets keep using that analogy. There is no reason for high speed to
>> or 4
>> times more expensive than dial-up. In reality, it should be less
>> it isn't) as they can serve more users with less infrastructure.
> How's that? You have a physical piece of copper to each 'residence' ...
>> Think about your home network. Would you prefer having a modem in each
> We do, they're called network cards.
>> connected to a switch that allows you to call from computer to
>> or have
>> a router or switch for all of them? which one you think is less
> And what do you think the routers and switches and infrastructure on
> premises cost?
> (This is not retail, where you have the associated price pressures.)
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "rbclemen at gmail.com" <rbclemen at gmail.com>
>> To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
>> Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 7:36:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
>> Sorry, meant to elaborate on that one but my Blackberry sent by
>> UBB is
>> a vicious attempt to use one monopoly to leverage oneself into another.
>> looked at another way, Bell is leveraging additional profit from every
>> service offered on the internet. It is absolutely the equivalent of
>> demanding a cut of every payment made on a bill that is mailed to a
>> To give one potent example, every Netflix.ca customer will be paying
>> about 9 dollars a month, and Bell about a dollar per movie.
>> Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
>> Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Unsolicited" <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
>> Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
>> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:27:00
>> To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
>> Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
>> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
>> On Sun, January 30, 2011 2:27 pm, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
>>> Co-location doesn't matter from what I hear. The charge will be for
>>> using bell's copper. Yes it is unbelievably stupid.
>> Don't mean to be provocative here - guess I'm just uninformed.
>> Why is UBB "unbelievably stupid"?
kwlug-disc mailing list
kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
More information about the kwlug-disc